The Emerging Nature of Psychology

Chapter 1
The Emerging Nature of Psychology

of Technology
1.1 An Introduction to Psychology of Technology
“Life was much easier when apple and blackberry were just fruits!”
Do we really think so? Imagine life without the Apple’s iPhone, or the Blackberry
that has been the hallmark of most people around the world in the last decade; life
without a mobile phone, a computer, the internet, and the many other gizmos sur-
rounding us? It certainly seems difficult, to say the least.
We still remember the evening when we sat down and began to wonder about the
times before we started writing letters predominantly through the email rather than
through the traditional postal mail (or snail mail as the i-Generation would call it).
It brought back memories of painstakingly writing the letter (choosing the paper
was often equally important as the contents), going to the post office, buying and
affixing stamps, and making sure that the receiver’s address was correct. Then came
the email: simple and fast. However, in the beginning, the thought uppermost in our
minds was whether it was appropriate to communicate via such a novel technologi-
cal method—especially, if it was a culturally significant event, such as a wedding
invitation or the birth of a child. It soon dawned upon us that the use of technology
in sending letters had slowly changed our very style of communication. It seems as
if technology had walked into our lives in a very subtle, albeit calm, way. Yes, many
of the effects of technology are simply happening, without much ado. However,
when each of us started enlisting the sorts of behavior that have been affected by
technology and the ways in which it had conspicuously changed our lifestyle, we
differed in our preferences. But, we did agree on one thing: we had just got hooked
onto technology with little or no fuss. Additionally, we also noticed that this pre-
dominant influence of technology had its own sweet rewards that had been, hitherto,
unknown to us. For example, as we began to browse our own emails that had been
written over the years in multiple contexts, ranging from personal to professional
correspondence, little did we realize that we had created a virtual Avatar for our self
by using various portals—starting from Microsoft Windows to Twitter and
© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 1

V.K. Kool, R. Agrawal, Psychology of Technology,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-45333-0_1
2 1 The Emerging Nature of Psychology of Technology
Facebook, of late. It was more than a collection of memories. It was about how we
had changed with the times not just as people but also as learners of technology as
our mainstay of communication, as consumers of technology for intervention in our
well-being and health care needs, and as enablers of technology to understand our
self beyond the given biological limits. Had we foreseen some 25 years back, the
ways through which we are teaching today or even writing this book? Whatever we
do, where ever we go, technology seems to be omnipresent, whether we like it or
not—ranging from the virtual customer service agent to the insecurity of mobile
banking and virtual banks.
The pace at which technology is growing is more than obvious. No longer do we
need to look at the stars and the sky to read signs about impending weather. Our
smart phone has it all ready for us at any time of the day. Nay, even the night or the
week before, one can get weather forecasts and plan life accordingly. Going to
work? Having a fear of being caught in traffic snarls? Your GPS guides you through
the quickest route, avoiding all the traffic, blocked roads, etc. Once at work, gone
are those days when one had to rely on a personal secretary to bring in voluminous
files on which decisions had to be taken. You may not even have a personal secre-
tary. The work place has changed and work rules have been reengineered. From
CAD-CAM and robotics leading the way in manufacturing; graphic designing in
advertising; e-commerce, e-banking, and CRM in marketing; ERP, SAP, and the use
of big numbers and analytics in finance and enterprise management, to name just a
very few, work has taken on a new shape.
And, it is not just at work. Our very lifestyles have changed. Schools boast of
smart classes, homes are highly automated, from the lowly microwave oven to the
I-robot that vacuums your home without your help and even when you are not there
and vehicles change settings according to the customized key of the driver. Equipped
with an Apple watch and a Fit-bit, riding a Harley Davidson bike and earphones
tucked into the ears, the youth of the twenty-first century is ready to take on the
world.
However, our capacity to judge the impact of technology has not grown propor-
tionately, for our response to the technological change is much slower. It takes time
to accommodate to such changes at the cognitive level and we often realize its sig-
nificance only when the technology is lost or withdrawn. Imagine the day you lose
your mobile phone!
An incident such as that of losing one’s phone and the ensuing emotional reac-
tion shows very clearly that technology is not just about creating tools: it is about
understanding human nature and how it reacts to technology. This is where psychol-
ogy of technology can come to the rescue.
But first things first: let us get to the crucial question: what is technology? Also,
has technology always had such a pervasive impact on our lives? Were our ancestors
also using some kind of technology to understand and predict the ravages of nature?
Were they using technology to predict when it would rain, or when there would be
a thunderstorm? Was technology being used to move from one place to another, or
to communicate with people far away?
1.2 Defining Technology 3
Coming to the first question raised above, our initial reaction is that technology
constitutes the world of material possessions. It is about how we make things and
use those things. On second thought, and looking at it more seriously, it starts
becoming clear that some kind of organization of knowledge must have taken place
to initiate the development of such things. When a chimp feels hungry and craves
for protein in his diet, he uses a small twig to burrow into the soft soil to dig out
insects to satiate his need. The size and diameter of the twig has to be such that it is
strong enough to penetrate the soil, or else, the chimp will be unsuccessful in his
task. So the chimp organizes his knowledge regarding the soil, the twigs around
him, and that digging would lead to the finding of food.
As human beings dealt with the forces of nature, including predictable or unpre-
dictable conditions such as weather, they gathered knowledge which enabled them
to fabricate material needed to promote their survival. From a practical point of
view, technology refers to a form of human activity geared to the making of things.
Such activity involves using components of nature, typically called raw materials,
to develop a product. Therefore, technology is rooted in the practice of how we
engage in manipulating our environment so as to gain mastery over it. Additionally,
as we realize that the forces of nature keep changing, our adjustment to the use of
things also varies and our activities become technological in nature. For example, as
human beings learned how to increase food production through improved gadgets
for cultivation, they also began to devise things to preserve their cultivated products.
In this sense, technology is not merely something which is a product or an object.
Rather, its use may result in several forms of other activities, totally dynamic in
nature. Similarly, we cannot think of technology merely as a possession or a collec-
tion of tools; it is also a source of finding something new and may result in various
forms of transformations. A bicycle has been used for mobility for years, but now,
in its static form, it is also used as an important tool for enhancing health and
fitness.
Before we go into the complexities of psychology of technology, we will intro-
duce some basic aspects about technology and our understanding of the role of
technology in our lives. An attempt will be made to answer many of the questions
raised above, as also, to raise other questions which will be elaborated upon in the
chapters to follow.
1.2 Defining Technology
Let us start by trying to answer a very basic question, what do we mean by the term,
technology? Amazing though it may seem (because we
generally take technology to be synonymous with the The word technology
originates from the
last couple of centuries) the first discussions on tech-
Greek word “techne”
nology can be found in the works of Aristotle and Plato meaning art, skill and
and hence the word has a Greek origin, coming from “logia” referring to the
underlying laws
the Greek word “techne,” meaning “art, skill, cunning

Definition of technol-
of hand” and “logia,” of course, referring to the under- ogy: all tools, utensils,
lying laws or principles (Liddell & Scott, 1980, The weapons, instruments,
Greek-English Lexicon). With the coming of the twen- housing, clothing,
tieth century, we witness more formal definitions of the communication and
transporting devices, and
term. Probably, the definition most social scientists
the skills by which we
accept and adhere to is the one given by the American produce and use them
sociologist, Read Bain, in the American Sociological
Review. According to Bain, “technology includes all
tools, utensils, weapons, instruments, housing, cloth- Merriam-Webster
ing, communication and transporting devices and the Dictionary definition of
technology: the practical
skills by which we produce and use them” (Bain, 1937,
application of knowledge
p. 860). Another popular definition is the one advanced especially in a particular
by Bernard Stiegler. He defines it in two ways: firstly, area
as “the pursuit of life by means other than life” and
secondly, as “organized inorganic matter” (Stiegler, 1998, p. 17). By the twenty-first
century, the range of technologies has increased in manifold ways, requiring an
even more encompassing definition. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary gives the
following meaning for the term technology: “the practical application of knowledge
especially in a particular area” (2007) and W. Brian Arthur defines technology “as a
means to fulfill a human purpose” (Arthur, 2009, p. 28).
Another way of looking at technology is in terms of its structure and functions.
From the point of structure, it stands before us in the form of a product or a machine.
But for most people, its system of operation and the intricate nature of its formation
remain a mystery. It can be likened to the black box of an aircraft about which we
normally do not know anything except its operation. So, for the vast majority of us, the
primary interest in technology is only in the functions or the uses of that technology.
However, when we deal with technology, we need to focus on both the issues: the
creation of a product and its operation. Both aspects are related to each other, but ironi-
cally, as technology becomes highly complex, the ordinary human being starts feeling
helpless and restricts himself to its functional or utilitarian aspect. Just think of the very
many of us who have been driving cars with a great deal of perfection and for years
together, without ever knowing about the complex ways in which its engine operates.
Thus, there seems to be no singular way by which we can define technology
because of the very nature of the concept itself. As human beings engaged in various
forms of activities to enhance their adaptation to the environment, not all forms of
behavior, albeit goal oriented, resulted in the development of a product. Similarly,
many technological achievements have taken place and are still taking place not with
any particular purpose, rather, they simply happened. However, let us look at the vari-
ous ways in which technology can be defined. As discussed above, its meaning has
been shrouded by various connotations, some of which have been summarized below:
• Technology is goal directed; it is purposive in nature.
• Technology involves manipulation of environment to promote our adjustment.
• Technology involves making things and therefore it is a form of human activity.
1.2 Defining Technology 5
• Technology is resource based.

• Technology involves integration of raw material in some form to fabricate a
product
• Technology is restricted by the availability of knowledge and resources.
Putting it all together, one can say that a compre-
hensive definition of technology would include the Comprehensive
definition of technology:
use of matter that has been organized in some way so as use of matter that has
to help us to encounter our lives and solve its problems been organized in some
effectively. The range of items that come under the way so as to encounter
rubric of technology is vast, as aptly described by Bain our lives and solve its
and, therefore, a simple hammer is technology and so is problems
the complex space station.
1.2.1 Science and Technology
Another aspect that often confuses the common man is the differences between
technology and some related, albeit, independent terms. When we talk of medical
technology, transportation technology, food technology, communication technol-
ogy, textile technology, or cooking technology, or even space and satellite technol-
ogy, we are adding prefixes to the word technology to specify the use of technology
in that particular field. But, how about the generic term known as technology? Is it
synonymous with the term “science” or “engineering” for that matter? What does
this technology accomplish for us and even more so, what does technology do to us?
Have we become different from our ancestors of yore, who lived in the jungles and
caves? Is technology useful for us? Is it good for us? Should we allow it to prolifer-
ate, ad infinitum? Why is it that we like certain technologies and are ready to adopt
them, while there are others that we tend to abhor from the very start? These and
many more such questions continue to perplex us once we start thinking about the
whole issue of the role of technology in our lives.
As a child, you have probably often been asked to solve the riddle regarding the
hen and the egg: which came first, the hen or the egg? Trying to differentiate
between science and technology is very much akin to this riddle. Scientists and
engineers are convinced that technology is nothing but applied science, but did we
not have technology even when there was no science or scientific principles per se?
In the next chapter, we will describe how even subhuman species such as dolphin,
elephants, and chimpanzees have been seen to devise tools to aid them in the dig-
ging of food. We will also describe some of the earliest known tools used by man,
dating to some 3.5 billion years ago. Did animals use principles of science to con-
struct their tools? Did science exist 3.5 billion years ago? Though scientists will
insist that it is science that paves the way for technology, there are enough exam-
ples to clarify that technology can exist even without formal science. The chimpan-
zee uses a twig to dig up worms while the elephant uses a branch of a tree to drive
away mosquitoes from its back. Similarly, we had tools used by early man to crack
nuts, or the pointed tool used to pull away flesh from the bones of a cadaver, The
twig, the branch, the stone hammer, the pointed tool—they are all tools and, thus,
they can all be classed as technology that we have constructed to solve a problem—
they have all made life easier for us, but did science, as a set of principles, exist at
that time? And then, what would be your conclusion regarding science and technol-
ogy when you think of the fact that science has advanced often because of technol-
ogy? Galileo would not have been able to advance his theory without the invention
of the telescope and modern science is dependent upon a whole host of technolo-
gies in order to gain insight into the phenomenal world. At the same time, there are
other examples to show that technology is a consequence of science. The telephone
could be invented only after it was discovered that sound travels from one point to
another given a medium through which to travel. The airplane is a consequence of
the scientific principles of aerodynamics being put to use by engineers. As can be
seen, there is no one answer to whether science preceded technology, did technol-
ogy exist before science came into being, or whether they have advanced, each in
their own way, independent of one another. But, one can try to analyze the differ-
ences between the two.
By and large, science “investigates the reality that Difference between
is given,” whereas technology “creates reality accord- science and technology:
ing to a design” (Skolimowski, 1966, p. 44). Later, science deals with reality
Herbert Simon (1969) contended that whereas science that is given while
is concerned with how things are, technology is con- technology creates
reality according to a
cerned with how things ought to be. Let us examine this design
difference with an example. Science refers to the devel-
opment of systematic knowledge that gives us insight in order to establish a cause–
effect relationship. A strong science offers firmly tested theories that have high
predictive value in different conditions. Take objects of different weights, toss them
up and you will find that all of them fall down. The common underlying cause is
gravity. Using this knowledge, we learn to give support to objects we use or else
they would be rolling down on the surface. However, with no gravity in outer space,
the same gadgets would still float irrespective of the support provided to them.
Presently, science is unable to deal with this problem of weightlessness and lack of
gravitational forces. However, will we wait until such time as when science is able
to offer information on restraining objects from flying in a weightless environment?
The answer is certainly “no.” Instead, we have developed technology to restrain fly-
ing objects and astronauts have been managing the weightlessness with the use of
appropriate technology developed for that purpose.
In fact, technology has been in existence long before human beings understood
science. Before we created the formal nature of science, commonly known as exper-
imental science, technology, in the form of various human crafts, was already a part
of human endeavor. Explaining behavior in terms of adaption to the environment, as
long back as in the early part of the last century, Dewey (1935) argued that there is
ample anthropological evidence to show that human activity can be viewed as being
synonymous with technology. For Dewey, there is no need to stipulate that science
1.3 Philosophy of Technology 7
should be a precursor of technology, for, technology was there when humans were
continuously making efforts to develop products to augment their adjustment to
their changing environment (Hickman, 1990). When an ethnologist found a bird
creating the tallest nest of about 6 ft to attract a female in an island in Java, it was a
technological marvel based on the capacities of this bird and comparable to the
technological marvel of those craftsmen who built the Taj Mahal without having
received any training in the field of architecture. In the entire history of mankind, a
lot of technology evolved as a result of human activity, and it occurred more by
accident than because of any purposeful design.
Another way to understand differences between the
Science comes from
two terms, science and technology, is through their Latin word “scientia”
respective etymology. As described above, technology meaning knowledge
originates from the Greek word “techne.” Science on
the other hand emanates from the Latin word, “scientia” meaning knowledge. As
the ScienceDictionary.com (2007) states
“Science is the reasoned investigation or study of phenomena, aimed at discovering endur-
ing principles among elements of the phenomenal world by employing formal methods
such as the scientific method.”
Thus, while science attempts to unravel the mysteries of the world, technology
helps us solve some of the day-to-day problems. Science is epistemological while
technology is pragmatic. It would probably not be wrong to say that while science
studies the world as it is, technology aims at changing that world to suit human
adjustment. In order to be useful, technology must satisfy our requirement in several
ways: it must not only be useful, it must also be usable and at the same time, safe.
Any knife would be useful, but it becomes safe only when its blade is protected by
a handle and usable only when the handle fits into the palm of the user. In order to
satisfy all three requirements, technology is often not exclusively a product of sci-
ence. It is based on many fields of knowledge, science being just one of them.
Technology has to draw heavily from disciplines such as ergonomics, mathematical
sciences, linguistics, and even historical knowledge and culture, so as to construct
something that would be of use to us.
1.3 Philosophy of Technology
While the origins of philosophy of science can be said to date back to Aristotle’s
Organon and many of the writings of Plato, philosophy of science emerged as a
distinct discipline only in the mid-twentieth century with the works and writings of
Thomas Kuhn (1962, The Structure of Scientific Revolution). Thereafter, of course,
there was a proliferation of philosophies, one for every discipline. So, one finds a
philosophy of physics, that of chemistry, biology, economics, social sciences, and
even a philosophy of psychology. What we are specifically interested in is technol-
ogy and whether there exists anything akin to the philosophy of science as far as
technology is concerned. Specifically, we would like to know whether there is a

philosophy of technology, and if there is, what are its aims and objectives.
There is a basic difference between the philosophy
of science and that of technology. As far as the former Philosophy of technol-
ogy: tries to delineate the
is concerned, it has laid emphasis upon what constitutes impact of technology
science, what should be the subject matter of science, upon the human race
its methods and implications. As far as the impact of
science upon society is concerned, such questions have been left to social scientists
and historians. However, when we start reflecting upon the writings of scholars of
philosophy of technology, the main question has been the impact of technology
upon the human race.
Philosophers have reflected upon technology from the times of the Greeks and
the Romans. The writings of Plato and Aristotle clarify the ways in which technol-
ogy was conceptualized at that time. Plato considered technology to be basically an
imitation of nature (so man watched spiders weave their webs and this gave him the
idea that the weaving of cloth is possible and a technology emerged for that pur-
pose). Aristotle, however, was of the view that while man did imitate nature, it also
added to what he saw in nature. “Generally art in some cases completes what nature
cannot bring to a finish, and in others imitates nature” (Physics II.8, 199a15; see
also Physics II.2, Schummer, 2001, cf. Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy).
However, it was not until the middle of the twelfth century and the writings of
Francis Bacon that due emphasis was laid upon developing a philosophy of technol-
ogy, and it was still later, in the nineteenth century that the first text on the philoso-
phy of technology appeared on the scene. This was Eine Philosophie der Technik,
written by a philologist and historian Ernst Kapp in 1877. As technology became
more pervasive in the twentieth century, we find a large number of social scientists
and scholars from other disciplines becoming concerned with the role of technology
in the sociocultural fabric of the world. The more prominent among these are Martin
Heidegger, Arnold Gehlen, Lewis Mumford, Jacques Ellul and Albert Borgmann,
Don Ihde, Bernard Stiegler, and Bruno Latour. While a number of important indi-
vidual works were published in the second half of the twentieth century, two books
published at the turn of the century marked the development of the philosophy of
technology as an academic subdiscipline. These were, Technology and the Good
Life (2000), edited by Eric Higgs, Andrew Light and David Strong, and American
Philosophy of Technology (2001) by Hans Achterhuis.
Let us now focus on some of the important aspects Humanities group: from
of the philosophy of technology. First and foremost, we humanities group and
find that there are two broad groups of thinkers who concerned with role of
technology in our lives
have tried to work out a philosophy of technology. The
first group constitutes those who have been called the
humanities group because they are generally from the Analytical group:
humanities disciplines and more importantly because concerned with the
design and engineering
they have been concerned with the role of technology aspect of technology
in our lives. The second group, known as the analytical
group is concerned with a totally different set of questions, namely, with the design
and the engineering aspect of technology, as also with methodological issues. These
include Henry Skolimowski, Herbert Simon, Mario Bunge, Ian Jarvie, and Michael
Polanyi. While some defend the similarities between science and technology, others
argue for their relative independence.
The turning point in the growth of philosophy of technology was the rejection of
the Cartesian model having its roots in the works of the philosopher Descartes who
believed, “I do not recognize any difference between the machines made by crafts-
men and various bodies nature alone composes” (Cottingham, Stoothoof, &
Murdoch, 1984, p. 99). This approach made an enormous impact on physical and
biological sciences and most scientists began to investigate body functions as if they
were functions of a machine. As far as the domain of psychology is concerned, such
an approach implied that we tend to entertain ideas to be true (or false) and to stay
so by default until we make an attempt to change them (Gilbert, 1991).
Unlike the commonly known philosophy of biology or the philosophy of phys-
ics, the specific subfield of philosophy of technology remained relatively unknown
until German philosopher Martin Heidegger (1962) argued that technology is about
more than merely developing instruments. He concentrated on two aspects of
technology:
• “Technik,” referring to older forms of technology concentrating on making things
as we see in the conventional areas of mechanical and electrical engineering
• “Technologie,” which is instrumental in nature and aims at uncovering and
discovering, for example, what we now know as biotechnology, nanotechnology,
etc.
Sensing the changing role of technology and its
Hervorbringen: to make
impact on human lives, Heidegger argued that in our things
pursuit of a deeper understanding of technology we
need to move beyond hervorbringen (to make things)
Herausforden: to change
to herausfordern (to change nature). While a clear nature
example of the former is our ability to develop the
windmill which is dependent on the flow of air to obtain maximum effects, the latter
is embodied in technology that challenges nature and modifies it to obtain results,
for example, creating dams and managing the flow of water in them.
While philosophy of technology is a relatively new subject, it has considerable
significance for psychology. For example, while most of us believe that technology
makes us modern, French scholar Bruno Latour (1993) raised the question “What
does it mean to be modern” in his famous book, We have never been modern, and
addressed issues regarding our mental landscape. In developing his Actor-Network
Theory, popularly known as ANT, he questioned our understanding of our own
society and how it influences our relationship with technology. If we view society
as a bundle of ties, it is confined to its material domain and remains a product for us
manifested in our normative behavior or in the established and stable state of affairs.
On the other hand, when we view society in the context of its original meaning, that
Table 1.1 Our understanding of technology and society

Classification of environment
Human conception Evolutionary (society) Unnatural (technology)
View as a product A bundle of ties/product Objects/artifacts
View as a process Seeking connections/ties Seeking possibilities
is, how it was assembled or what was assembled, we engage in, what Latour called,
“seeking trace connections.” Essentially, he was referring to the fact that a better
understanding of relationships can be had only in the context of anthropology.
We believe that the impact of the views of both Heidegger and Latour are impor-
tant for the understanding of technology and human behavior in more than one way.
First, both invite us to think beyond society or technology in static forms or prod-
ucts, and that they would be better understood in terms of processes rather than as
fixed materials. Second, in the context of our conception of nature, both technology
and society have been playing many significant, and often difficult to measure,
roles. The role of philosophy of technology or for any science, for that matter, is to
help us develop an understanding of how and why the boundaries between science,
technology, humanities, and social sciences remain unconnected or become blurred.
Any scientist, including the psychologist, will then be forced to face the questions
of ethics that are so relevant for our own existence as humans. Table 1.1 illustrates
the interrelationship between technology and society in the context of such a
conceptualization.
With the amazing technological developments of this century giving us the feel
of living in a natural environment despite the fact that the environment has been
artificially produced (as in virtual reality or VR) or for that matter, parts of our body
may be artificial (e.g., the pace maker in the heart or the artificial limb), the bound-
aries between technology, society, and human beings are fading and becoming
blurred at both the individual and the social levels, which is, in itself, overwhelm-
ing for modern social sciences. The ways in which technology, society, and humans
will connect is best summarized in a recent issue of the Time magazine (August 17,
2015). Quoting Jaron Lanier, VR entrepreneur, in the article, Inside the box, Time
reported: “Virtual reality,” he says, “is a means of spontaneous, improvisational
visual expression, the same way that talking is a means of aural communication;
it’s the next logical step from written language to printing press to photographs to
audio recording to film. It can blur the distinction between you and the rest of the
world,” (p. 49).
In his article, Toward a philosophy of technology, Hans Jonas (1979) had reflected
on several aspects of technology. First, according to him, the traditional view of
technology as a mere state of human activity or possession is no longer valid. Such
a static view of technology goes to undermine the comprehensive nature of its
impact. Technology has now become a part of human enterprise forcing human
aspiration to raise the bar and to strive for success as never before. It has helped cre-
ate new laboratories that have expanded the role of science and paved the way for
indefinite progress. Technology is no more considered simply a means to an end; it
is now an art to complement our knowledge that is seemingly fathomless and

unending. It even seeks to replace our cognition with technology in the form of
robots, enabling it to function beyond present human limits.
Secondly, technology may be viewed in terms of its material form. In this case,
it is forced to depend on science for its growth. A discovery in science is of no value
if it cannot be applied. The discovery of electricity fails to have much significance
unless and until it can be used to light homes and operate numerous gadgets. It is
this material form of technology which also represents its ugly nature. When we
generate electricity with the help of atomic energy, we create a risk for our environ-
ment. The malfunctioning of nuclear reactors and dumping of its waste has led to
catastrophic effects. Even with our current knowledge, what we now know about
such adverse effects may be regarded as merely the tip of the iceberg.
This material connotation of technology has undergone rapid changes during the
past century. While scientific knowledge of mechanical and chemical components
was the basis of technological developments in the past few decades, it is develop-
ments in electronics, today, which have led to technology becoming an integral part
of our life. Take away the various gizmos from college going youth, and they would
begin to feel as if they have regressed to some primitive form of life. Similarly, a
power failure or the loss of an internet connection for even a very short period of
time has a debilitating effect on us.
The third impact of technology, according to Jonas, is related to moral issues.
Technology does not distinguish between the good and the evil or between what is
fair and unfair. The use of surveillance gadgets could be viewed by some as good for
the security of community, but for others, it amounts to invasion of their privacy.
One of the greatest dangers that technology produces is the way in which it empow-
ers the user. The cold war between the USA and the Soviet Union may be consid-
ered to be a good example of this. Both had nuclear power and continued to
accelerate their technical arsenal to dominate the world, each one believing that it
would be powerful enough to prevail upon the other. We all know that if the use of
technology is not monitored carefully, it may cause catastrophic effects (see
Box 1.1). It is no wonder that we are living on the edge of moral failure in our use
of dangerous technology.
Box 1.1: Disaster on the Three Mile Island (TMI)

The Three Mile Island accident was a nuclear meltdown that occurred on
March 28, 1979, in reactor number 2 of the Three Mile Island Nuclear
Generating Station in Pennsylvania, USA. It is said to be the worst accident in
US commercial nuclear power plant history.
The accident began with failures in the nonnuclear secondary system,
followed by a stuck-open pilot-operated relief valve in the primary sys-
tem, which allowed large amounts of nuclear reactor coolant to escape.
(continued)
Box 1.1: (continued)

The mechanical failures were compounded by the initial failure of plant oper-
ators to recognize the situation due to inadequate training and other human
factors. Despite the valve being stuck open, a light on the control panel sup-
posedly indicated that the valve was closed. As a result, the operators did not
correctly diagnose the problem for several hours. Even more so the operators
had not been trained to understand the ambiguous nature of the pilot-operated
relief valve indicator and to look for alternative confirmation that the main
relief valve was closed.
What really happened? Blockages are common with the resin filters in the
nuclear generators and are usually fixed easily, but in this case the usual
method of forcing the stuck resin out with compressed air did not succeed. At
6:56 a.m., a plant supervisor declared a site area emergency, and less than
30 min later station manager Gary Miller announced a general emergency,
defined as having the “potential for serious radiological consequences” to the
general public. The worst part was the fragmentary, ambiguous, or contradic-
tory statements made to government agencies and to the press, particularly
about the possibility and severity of off-site radioactivity releases. At a press
conference held thereafter, officers were reassuring, yet confusing, about this
possibility, stating that though there had been a “small release of radiation…
no increase in normal radiation levels” had been detected. These were contra-
dicted by another official, who claimed that no radioactivity had been released.
Later that day, the official changed his statement, saying that the situation was
“more complex than the company first led us to believe,” and schools were
closed, residents were urged to stay indoors and farmers were told to keep
their animals under cover and on stored feed. The Governor, on the advice of
NRC chairman, advised the evacuation “of pregnant women and pre-school
age children…within a five-mile radius of the Three Mile Island facility.” The
evacuation zone was extended to a 20-mile radius on Friday, March 30. Within
days, 140,000 people had left the area. More than half of the 663,500 popula-
tion within the 20-mile radius remained in that area. According to a survey
conducted in April 1979, 98 % of the evacuees had returned to their homes
within 3 weeks.
The accident caused intense concerns for safety among activists and the
general public, resulted in new regulations for the nuclear industry. Cleanup
started in August 1979, and officially ended only in December 1993, with a
total cleanup cost of about $1 billion.
Post-TMI surveys have shown that less than 50 % of the American public
were satisfied with the way the accident was handled by Pennsylvania State
officials and the NRC, and people surveyed were even less pleased with the
utility (General Public Utilities) and the plant designer.
(continued)

The Three Mile Island accident inspired the now well-known Normal
Accident Theory by Charles Perrow (1984), in which an accident occurs,
resulting from an unanticipated interaction of multiple failures in a complex
system. TMI was an example of this type of accident because it was “unex-
pected, incomprehensible, uncontrollable, and unavoidable.” Perrow con-
cluded that the failure at Three Mile Island was a consequence of the system’s
immense complexity. Such modern high-risk systems, he realized, were prone
to failures however well they were managed. It was inevitable that they would
eventually suffer what he termed a “normal accident.” Therefore, he sug-
gested, we might do better to contemplate a radical redesign, or if that was not
possible, to abandon such technology entirely. “Normal Accidents contributed
key concepts to a set of intellectual developments in the 1980s that revolution-
ized the conception of safety and risk. It made the case for examining techno-
logical failures as the product of highly interacting systems, and highlighted
organizational and management factors as the main causes of failures.
Technological disasters could no longer be ascribed to isolated equipment
malfunction, operator error or acts of God” (Pidgeon, 2011, p. 404).
Source: Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Backgrounder on the Three Mile
Island Accident (2014)
More recently, the thinkers from the analytical

Morally responsible
school have been showing concern regarding the issue design: designing
of morally responsible design and value-sensitive technology keeping in
design (Roeser, 2012; van den Hoven & Weckert, 2008; mind that it should not
Zwart, Poel, Mil, & Brumsen, 2006; Friedman, 2004). harm the user
A very telling example is provided by Burg and Gorp
regarding the design of a safer trailer. By empathizing with potential victims of a
suboptimally designed trailer, an engineer can use his imagination and knowledge
of engineering to avoid such mishaps even if the customer had not asked for such
features. After all, it is the designer of the technology who knows about or who can
think of the possible consequences of the technology, either negative or positive. In
other words, technology should not be value neutral for even the designer. Engineers
should not be like unemotional calculators; rather they should be morally respon-
sible engineers (Burg & Gorp, 2005). It is not just a mere tool, its design will deter-
mine the ways in which it will be used and whether it will be not just usable but also
safe to use.
A very different conceptualization has been posited by Ihde and Selinger (2003),
who argue that we would be able to understand technology by using the notion that
some form of human action precedes human cognition. As we interact with technol-
ogy, it becomes a part of our self-concept, that is, we begin to perceive and evaluate
our own existence in relationship with that technology (Box 1.2). As this self-
conception grows stronger, we start feeling empowered to achieve endlessly.
Box 1.2: Don Ihde: Non-neutrality of Technology-Mediated Experiences

“For every enhancement of some feature, perhaps never before seen, there is also a
reduction of other features. To magnify some observed object, optically, is to bring
it forth from a background into a foreground and make it present to the observer, but
it is also to reduce the former field in which it fit, and—due to foreshortening—to
reduce visual depth and background” (Ihde, 1979, p. 111).
Ihde uses several examples from optical technology to explain the above.
Take the wearing of simple eyeglasses. While the glasses enable you to see
things more clearly, it also reduces your vision for objects that lie at the
periphery of your vision. And, according to Ihde, no matter what the technol-
ogy, such magnifications of or affordances for certain objects minimize our
perception of other aspects. No form of technology is a simple neutral tool
which does nothing more than helps us to perform certain activities; technol-
ogy alters our perception and experiences of the world; technology-mediated
experiences are different from those which are not technology mediated. We
pay a price for every technology that we use; if nothing, one must care for it,
one must carry out maintenance functions; and, we definitely pay a monetary
price for it. Technology is therefore non-neutral.
Ihde also distinguishes between three types of relations that people could
have with technology, namely, embodiment, hermeneutical, and alterity
relations.
Embodiments: for certain technologies, our relationship becomes an embodi-
ment, meaning that we see the world through the technology. Again, whether
it is optical technology, hearing aids, a cane, the type people with visual
impairments use, our perception is restricted by the technology. But the beauty
of such sensory enhancing technology is that after initial adjustments, the
sensory aid recedes into the background, it becomes transparent and allows
the person to sense the environment through it; it is as if the technology has
become a part of the person, it has become an embodiment.
Hermeneutical relations: however, all technologies do not become embodi-
ments of the user. Rather, a relationship opposite of the above can form. Take
a glucometer, such that is used to measure blood glucose levels by diabetics.
Or, think of a thermometer used to measure temperature, whether it is that of
the human body or that of a certain city. In both these cases, the technological
aid does not become transparent. The diabetic does not see his blood through
the glucometer, and, neither do we feel the temperature of our body through
the thermometer. Rather than receding into the background, the tool becomes
the foreground and the world recedes into the background. Moreover, one
must acquire skills necessary to use the tool. One not only becomes dependent
on it as in the case of embodied relationships, but also, one cannot experience
these aspects without the tool. Without the glucometer, the diabetic would not
(continued)

know what her blood sugar level is like, and without the thermometer, you
would not be able to know what the temperature is like. One becomes depen-
dent on the tool even though one may not know whether it is working properly
or not. The instrument may be giving you wrong results but unless you com-
pare the results from some other tool, you will not know whether you are
getting true or false results. Your sugar levels may have risen but you trust
your glucometer which is saying that the level is well within the normal range.
Such a relationship with technology can be called a hermeneutical
relationship.
Alterity relationships: whether it is your eyeglasses or whether it is a ther-
mometer, you normally do not become emotionally attached to it. You drop
your spectacles and they break, you simply go to the optician and get another
pair readied for use. But there is some technology to which you get emotion-
ally attached. There are other technologies for which there is a sense of inter-
action with it much as your interactions with other people or animals. But the
difference is that these interactions fall somewhere in between in our contin-
uum of experiences. They are not as strong as that with other people and ani-
mals and nor are they as weak as are relationship with objects. They fall in
between. A good example is that of computer games or video games. While
playing them, you get the feeling that you are playing against an opponent,
when in reality there is none. The feelings on winning or losing are akin to
those you undergo when playing with a real opponent, you must beat it. Your
relationship with a mere technology has been altered, you start anthropomor-
phizing it, giving it human like attributes. Another characteristic of alterity
relationships is that your emotions regarding the technology may get altered.
As long as the computer or your cell phone is working, it is fine, and you love
your cell phone, but just imagine that yourself losing it. It is as if you are lost
without it.
“The quasi-love relationship” is lost, the tool itself becomes conspicuous,
and the relationship transforms into frustration and “quasi-hate,” a kind of
alterity human–technology relation (Ihde, 1990, p. 106).
“To summarize, technologies mediate our experience of the world. They
appear in between humans and the world and change our experiences, ampli-
fying some aspects while reducing others. While a technology may enable
one to act on the world, it simultaneously limits other ways of acting, enabling
new experiences while closing down the potential for others. It is however
important to realize that “no technology is ‘one thing,’ nor is it incapable of
belonging to multiple contexts” (Ihde, 1999, p. 47). Technologies are thus
multi-stable, as they can be embodied in various ways for various purposes.”
Source: Fallman (2011)
As we can see from the above, the relationship between human beings and tech-
nology has been changing in the course of human history. As mentioned earlier, the
role of technology in the past was confined to its subservient nature, but now this
has changed such that it transforms our relationship with nature even to the extent
of creating a paradox. Technology is not only being used to enhance our adaptation
to nature, but with the developments in genetic engineering, our own body has
become an object for technology. In other words, we have become so dependent on
technology that it is helping us to explore the very nature of our existence.
While no one doubts that technology has deeply and irreversibly affected the
social character and social fabric, there is considerable controversy between schol-
ars as to whether technology drives society (technological determinism) or whether
it is vice versa (social determinism). These have also been known as “push” and
“pull” theorists, respectively. Linda Green in her book, Technoculture, (2001)
attempts to draw distinctions between these two sets of thinkers. According to her,
those who believe in technological determinism, firmly believe that “it was features
of technology that determined its use and the role of a progressive society was to
adapt to (and benefit from) technological change,” (p. 2) while those who talk about
social determinism, “looks upon society being at fault for the development and
deployment of technology” (p. 3).
We are all familiar with the works and thoughts of Karl Marx who elaborated on
this very idea when he wrote that changes in modes of production are the primary
reason for change in social structure and cultural practices. So, with the advent of
the industrial revolution, mass production became possible, bringing in its wake
many a social change, including the migration of people from rural to urban manu-
facturing hubs, changes in the family structure and the intermingling of cultural
practices from a variety of regions. This led, in turn, to the development of a new
culture, the culture and traditions of the migrant worker, who is physically present
in the factory but his heart still burns for his family and home in the faraway
village.
A more recent proponent is Thomas Friedman, who, though a journalist, changed
the mindset of many through his highly acclaimed book The World is Flat (2005).
In other words, we organize ourselves and our society in a manner that is dictated
by technology. For example, with advancements in communication technology has
not our mode of communication, and especially that of the youth, undergone a sea
change? Did we SMS earlier? Did we use Whatsapp or Facebook to share photos
not only with people across continents but also with the person who is sitting very
close to you, say in office, but whom you fear to disturb directly? As luggage with
wheels is becoming more and more common and technologically more advanced,
that genre of people, known as porters, is fast disappearing. The same is the case
with the stenographer in office. With more and more people typing their own cor-
respondence on their computers, one does not need to dictate letters, memos, notes,
etc., and as a result one hardly sees stenographers in offices, leave alone seeing
advertisements for courses on typing and stenography. Communication technology
has also enabled concepts such as flexi-work times and video conferencing to
become a reality. Technology seems to lead to a process of natural selection much
akin to the Darwinist natural selection in the evolution of species, causing some
societal processes to become extinct and at the same time, retaining those that are
conducive to the advancement of that technology.
But this is only half the truth. Yes, technology is important and does affect our
lives in very important ways but there are other factors that are also important,
sometimes to a lesser degree but at other times, to an equal degree. This realization
is what brought people to talk of a “soft” technological determinism, as contrasted
to the “hard” deterministic role of technology discussed above. A soft deterministic
view point believes that though technology is important, it interacts with the socio-
political situation. While technology continues to be the guiding force, we have a
chance to take decisions regarding the adoption of the technology. A prime example
of this is what has been termed as a cultural lag with regard to technology
adoption.
While the above viewpoints were true during the early phases of technology
development, for example, when inventions were taking place at great speed during
the industrial revolution, the intertwining of technology with other social, cultural,
economic, and political factors is apparently more complex.
There is a third school of thought, namely, the social
Social shaping of
shaping of technology school, which believes that
technology school:
rather than there being a unidirectional relationship bidirectional relationship
between technology and society, there is a bidirectional between technology and
interaction between the two, with each shaping the society with each
other. As stated by Murphie and Potts (2003), “technol- shaping the other
ogy does not determine but operates, and is operated
upon, in a complex social field.” In complete contrast, the social constructionist
believes that the path of innovation is shaped by society and various societal forces,
allowing only those aspects of technology to become reality as fit in with the social
setup. Why is the technological divide so clear in some countries but not in others?
And even this technology divide is not equal for all types of technology. In India, for
example, penetration of internet is still limited to urban and semi-urban areas and
also follows a pattern dictated by socioeconomic class, but mobile telephony does
not follow this pattern. One finds people from all socioeconomic classes and from
even remote rural areas using a cell phone very smartly. One reason is that cell
phones are cheaper than computers. The same can be said for labor saving devices
used in the kitchen. With low incomes, these devices are more of a luxury than a
necessity as far as India and other developing countries are concerned but they
become a necessity where household help is far more expensive than the price of
gadgets, as in the case of the developed Western countries.
Summarizing from the above, it is clear that the role of technology in human life
and endeavor has been undergoing widespread change. Some of these have been
delineated below:
1. Initially, technology operated at a very basic level. For example, look at the tools
of primitive human beings found in Ethiopia some 3.5 million years ago.
2. As human beings entered the era of land cultivation and agriculture, a more com-
plex set of tools was needed. Tools became a medium through which man could
unravel the mysteries of nature. During the era which saw the growth of the
agricultural society, nature was adored and any technology that brought a change
in our relationship with nature was abhorred and perceived as being unsafe.
3. With the onset of the machine era, the role of technology transformed enor-
mously. It took over several functions of the gifts of nature, for example, an
automobile replacing the animal driven buggies. Human skills gradually surren-
dered to that of mechanical gadgets. No longer was the pride in human handwrit-
ing considered practical in large-scale transactions and for formal and large-scale
communication, typewriters were obviously a better option. By and large, sev-
eral chores performed with the help of the human body were taken over by
human-made devices, that is, technology.
4. With the invention of computers—the greatest technological achievement of the
twentieth century—each and every part of our life has changed. We no longer
look at a book for an answer but open a computer and search. We do not remem-
ber telephone numbers of friends and acquaintances but look at the list of con-
tacts in our mobile phone. Technology has offered us artifacts that have the
ability to supplement the functioning of our brain. Its role has expanded from
controlling functions of the body to the control of mental operations.
Consider the long white cane of a blind man. It is not simply a tool. Over a period
of time, it has become a part of human operation much the same way as he used his
hands for navigation. This is the physical part. With advancing technology, human
beings have found an alternative to their cognition. No longer do we need to think
about and solve complex numerical operations; we simply feed them into a com-
puter and almost immediately we receive an output. Technology now provides a
substitute to mental operations and more. It has already begun to inform us about
the functioning of our brain through a product that has been invented by our own
brain. As such the relationship between human beings and technology has become
interactive; the more we invent, the more we learn about our own brain.
The pervasive influence of technology has led us to perceive the resemblance
between our body and a machine. Our nerves are projected as an electrical system
and our arms as levers, and so on. With the advancement of genetic programming,
human beings have become an object of technology. Can we imagine where tech-
nology will lead us once the script of our genetic code has been identified? There
would be an unending door of applications for which we might not even be pre-
pared. In essence, the role of technology will shift from being a means to becoming
an end. Rather than watching the movie Shreck, the viewer would want to be the
Shreck. In short, the contemporary view of technology seeks answers for what tech-
nology is versus what it is not; and even more, what it can and should do (Latour,
2013, 1987; McGinn, 2010; Martin & Schinzinger, 2005; Mitcham, 1994).
It is clear that as technology became more pervasive our conception of the rela-
tionship between technology and society has also changed. This has been presented
in the flow chart below and detailed further in Box 1.3.
Technological determinism → hard and soft determinism → social construc-
tion of technology → technology as a system
Box 1.3: Albert Borgmann and the Device Paradigm: Our Subservience
to Technology
“In this rising tide of technological devices, disposability supersedes commanding
presence, discontinuity wins over continuity, and glamorous thrills trump centering
experiences,” (Strong & Higgs, 2000, p. 24).
According to Albert Borgmann, as far as technology is concerned, a thing

that is useful may not always be good. So a refrigerator is useful but it also
exudes gases that lead to global warming.
Borgmann’s device paradigm: Borgmann differentiates between focal things
and technological artifacts that he calls devices. Giving the example of the
traditional wood fire place, he explains how this demanded not only patience
but also the presence of people who are both present and also continuously
engaged in keeping the fire going. It thus engages not only the mind but also
the body. There is a continuous connection between the means and the end,
possible only if means (i.e., the wood), is there, making up the fire, lighting it
and tending it and the end of procuring heat and warmth from it. This wood fire
place afforded a place where people would gather around, gossiping till the last
embers remained, collectively tending the fire and, thereby, connecting people
and creating a social bonding between the people who are present. Such things
are focal things that engage not only the mind but also the body. In the words
of Borgmann, “a focal thing is not an isolated entity; it exists as a material
center in a complicated network of human relationships and relationships to its
natural and cultural setting” (Strong & Higgs, 2000, p. 23).
Borgmann then compares the traditional fire with the modern heating sys-
tem. While it is very convenient, all you have to do is switch it on and turn it
to the temperature you want and sit back to relax with a book or with your
laptop. Does it require your constant presence? Does it require collective
effort to keep it going? Does it require physical effort or any special skill? No,
none of these are required and these are the supposed advantages of the heat-
ing technology. But by so doing, the technology makes us passive users. At
the same time, it is useful only so far that it provides us warmth; that camara-
derie that characterized the wood fireplace is also missing, making us passive
recipients of the technology, but removing us further from the world around
us. As Fallman (2011) puts it, “At the heart of Borgmann’s philosophy of
technology is thus the notion that modern technology tends to operate to
deconstruct things and reconstitute them into devices, and that this transfor-
mation is accelerating with recent advances in information technology.” The
irony of technology is that its devices take us further and further away from
people, which require less and less of human input, disengaging us from each
other and in so doing frustrating the higher and deeper aspirations of the per-
son. He is of the view that technology is gradually creating us into passive
creatures and fears that rather than being the master of that technology, we
may become subservient to it.
Source: Strong and Higgs (2000)
1.4 Psychology as a Science
Compared to the many other sciences that have been taught for centuries, the teach-
ing of psychology as an independent science of behavior and mental processes does
not have a long history. Whereas, on the one hand, philosophy and religion accounted
for the conceptual growth of psychology for a long time, physical sciences, on the
other hand, expanded its growth through explorations in brain functioning, mostly
through improvized tools of research. The German scholar Helmholtz, known for
his pioneering work in vision and audition, believed that psychology would never
gain the status of a science owing to its vulnerability in not being able to employ
objective tools for the study of mental processes.
As psychology began employing tools that were scientific in nature, more uni-
versities and colleges started offering undergraduate and graduate programs in their
curriculum. The first laboratory of psychology was established in Leipzig, Germany
in 1879 by Wilhelm Wundt who was both a philosopher and a physiologist. Around
the same time momentum gained and led to the starting of the teaching of psychol-
ogy at Harvard and other schools in the universities of the USA. Subsequently, psy-
chology became a popular subject of study in North America and around the globe.
For example, in 1985, there were only five universities teaching psychology in
China. By the end of the century, this number rose to 40.
The growth of psychology is generally described on
Psychoanalytic school:
the basis of what are known as the four main schools of study of mental processes
psychology: psychoanalytic, behaviorist, gestalt, and such as the unconscious
humanistic schools. Led by Freud, the psychoanalytic and conscious mind and
school was primarily c oncerned with the study of dif- role of early childhood
ferent aspects of mental life ranging from the uncon- experiences
scious to the conscious mind and the impact of early
childhood experiences. Behaviorism, on the contrary, Behaviorism: focus on
focused more on the observable form of behavior and observable behavior and
scientific methods to
using various scientific techniques, demonstrated how
study behavior
our behavior is linked to the environment. Gestalt psy-
chology primarily offered principles regarding the
ways in which we organize information to create a uni- Gestalt psychology:
offered principles for the
fied whole known as a gestalt and laid the foundation ways in which we
of what we now know as the “cognitive revolution” in organize information and
psychology. Cognitive psychology studies how we per- create a unified whole
ceive and think and tend to adapt to our environment.
Finally, led by Rogers and Maslow, humanistic psy- Humanistic school:
chology offered insights away from negative or neutral focus on or ability to
forms of human nature focusing on our ability to seek seek growth and healthy
growth and healthy development. While each school development
has contributed to the development and exploration of
several aspects of behavior and mental processes, they seem to have disappeared
from contemporary psychology. However, the impact of these schools has led to the
1.4 Psychology as a Science 21
growth of several subfields of psychology, for example,

Positive psychology:
abnormal and clinical psychology—profoundly influ- focus on the positive side
enced by psychoanalysis; cognitive psychology—ini- of human nature, rather
tially rooted in gestalt school; and positive than on the negative
psychology—emerging from the basic tenets of
humanistic psychology.
As our behavior varies in different settings of our life ranging from the religious
to the industrial setting, or say from the social to the educational setting, the need
for the study of behavior in each setting led to the growth of many subfields of psy-
chology: social psychology, educational psychology, industrial psychology, health
psychology, etc. For our purpose here, we are presenting an argument for a specific,
albeit interdisciplinary, subfield of the psychology of technology, believing that, as
discussed in the opening paragraphs of this chapter, technology has influenced our
behavior even in those subfields that have long been studied in the domain of psy-
chology. Has not our teaching and learning within the classroom or outside it been
influenced by technology? With our plan to travel in space, will not technology
bring about major changes in our lifestyle? In the context of virtual environments,
how are we going to develop a renewed sense of social life? In the company of
robots around us, what type of relationships would we develop with them? Why was
a robot given a funeral in Japan, much in the same way that a human is given a
funeral? Will we feel and value the artificial left leg in a manner similar to how we
feel and value the real right leg? The impact of technology has opened up a plethora
of questions regarding our behavior in personal, social, and human-made condi-
tions. In fact, it has called for a reevaluation of our existence as human beings.
Keeping the above scenario in mind, let us explore
the subfields of psychology that have so far addressed Industrial psychology:
application of the
these and many similar forms of behavior that have been
methods, facts, and
influenced by technology (summarized in Box 1.4). In a principles of psychology
conventional sense, subfields such as industrial psychol- to people at work.
ogy, applied experimental psychology, engineering psy-
chology, human factors engineering or ergonomics have been addressing the impact
of technology on our behavior (Box 1.4). By and large, industrial psychology
attempts to seek “the application of the methods, facts, and principles of psychology
to people at work” (Schultz & Schultz, 2009). Its goal is to study the behavior of
people in the work setting. In most conditions of work, people are involved with the
use of machines, which should be, ideally speaking, compatible to them or, at a mini-
mum, understandably so. As machines became more complex and sophisticated, the
issues of compatibility, safety, and optimum performance became salient in analyz-
ing and understanding several key psychological processes such as cognition, per-
ception, motivation, and emotions. With a diverse group of scholars from engineering,
biological sciences, and social sciences including sociologists, this subfield of psy-
chology became a specialized area in itself. Within the leading organization of psy-
chologists in the world, the American Psychological Association, it emerged as a
separate entity known as Division 21: Applied Experimental and Engineering
Psychology and it coexists with Division 14: Industrial Psychology.
Box 1.4: Precursors of Psychology of Technology

Applied experimental psychology: concerned primarily with the applica-
tions of empirically drawn psychology in the context of perceptual, cognitive,
and motivational processes
Industrial psychology: study of behavior in the work setting
Human factors engineering: focus on man–machine systems and related
issues
Ergonomics: ergon = work; nomos = natural laws
At the same time, there exist other subfields with similar or equivalent
titles, for example, engineering psychology, psychology at work.
Box 1.5: Eindhoven University of Technology, UG Program, Psychology,

and Technology
In Psychology and Technology, you learn how technology influences people
and how you can use knowledge of psychology to let people use technology
as effectively as possible. But you also learn how you can use psychology to
design completely new technology applications such as motivational rehabili-
tation technology in healthcare, sociable robots, or brain–computer
interfaces.
People and technology
Teaching staff and students of Psychology and Technology program deal
with a wide range of different subjects, all of which focus on the relationship
between people and technology. For example:
• Robots that help in the household
• Intimate technology for showing affection at a distance
• Online auctions you can trust
• Lighting that makes you healthier and smarter
• Avatars that help you save energy
• Intelligent street lighting
• Persuasive technology or how your mobile phone helps you to lose weight.
And how can your shower make you use less water.
(Reproduced from the Eindhoven University web site) https://www.
tue.nl/en/university/departments/industrial-engineering-innovation-
sciences/education/undergraduate-programs/psychology-technology/
During the last decade, many psychology programs have become increasingly
specialized in their curriculum and include technology as their primary focus even
at the undergraduate level. They contain a large number of topics that are barely
paid attention to in most colleges and universities around the globe. To make readers
familiar with this scenario, Box 1.5 illustrates the psychology and technology pro-
gram of a university in Europe.
1.5 On Relating Psychology with Technology 23
1.5 On Relating Psychology with Technology
When we make an attempt to relate technology with psychology, there are at least
three facets that can be considered. These have been detailed below:
1.5.1 Psychology in Technology
The entire gamut of technology and its development is

highly complex, involving various academic disciplines Psychology IN
technology: role of
ranging from physics to biology to engineering. With psychology to determine
the increasing role of communication engineering, the which types of technol-
range and breadth of information and communications ogy the human apparatus
technology far exceeds the capacities of the human can handle
being’s limited sensory apparatus. Thus, when we
speak of psychology IN technology we are limiting the role of psychology to the
extent to which it can tie up with other disciplines to show which types of technol-
ogy the human anatomy and physiology can handle and what it cannot. Other
aspects of technology can be left for other disciplines to handle. In other words, if
we take the example of cloning, the role of psychology would be limited to the
understanding of the effects of cloning. Other aspects of cloning such as creating a
clone could safely be left to the biological sciences. At the same time, increasing
our pool of knowledge and moving towards this goal of cloning in terms of human
capabilities definitely falls within the range of psychology. In this sense, our cogni-
tive capabilities for innovation and entrepreneurship define the growth of technol-
ogy. In other words, technology, at times, needs psychology, just as it needs various
other disciplines, for its growth and development.
1.5.2 Psychology and Technology
Second, we can consider psychology AND technology

Psychology AND
as independent entities coming together only when we technology: the two
require them simultaneously. For example, psychology disciplines remain
uses technology when psychologists feel that they can independent entities,
gain from the use of technology. In a similar vein, we coming together only
when they need each
keep on manufacturing new products for business pur-
other.
poses until we discover its positive or negative impact.
Some teachers still ban the use of calculators and computers in learning basic math-
ematics. We walk on the road instead of using a treadmill, believing that natural
exercise is better for us.
While almost all sciences owe their growth to sophistication in technology, as of

date, the role of technology in psychology is negligible. This argument is based on
the fact that mental concepts require an interpretation of data at a level other than
that required by other sciences. Whereas concrete findings in physics and chemistry
revolve around a material component seeking an answer for another set of matter,
much of behavior is intangible and for its interpretation, it is imperative to go
beyond pure experimental data. Based on statistical validity, that is, significance of
results based on the rejection of a hypothesis of zero difference (i.e., the null hypoth-
esis), as experimental findings are, is not a sure guarantee for establishing the rela-
tionship between the observable form of behavior and its concurrence with human
cognition. Sometimes, concurrence may be found between the two, at other times,
there may be none.
Take the study of the role of reinforcement (basically, rewards and punishments)
in influencing behavior. When Skinner began training his pigeons to track silhou-
ettes of ships and reinforced them to learn to peck at an image, his primary motiva-
tion was to offer an application of this study for managing combat operations in
WW II (www.bfskinner.org/org/project-pigeon). He believed that behavior is only
what organisms do and refused to consider any mentalistic conception of behavior.
Sensing the above and being fully aware that interpretations of psychological
data based on experimental evidence could be problematic, Skinner remarked:
“My treatment of human behavior was largely an interpretation, not a report of experimen-
tal data. Interpretation was a common scientific practice, but scientific methodologists had
paid little attention to it” (p. 27, A matter of consequence, 1983).
Most students of psychology know that Skinner’s reinforcement theory is one of

the most popular theories of psychology. Its applications have been equally popular.
Through reinforcements, Skinner was able to change the probability of occurrence
of behavior. By inventing, what he called Teaching Machines, Skinner offered a
means of presenting reinforcement. With each success the student kept going ahead,
recording his level of achievement. However, when he made a mistake, he was pro-
vided feedback so that he could take corrective action (based on the feedback). Such
programmed learning opened the door for a very heavy dependence on technology
for determining the outcomes of learning. The above example goes to clarify how
psychology and technology can be related to each other as per the needs of psy-
chology and psychologists (see Box 1.6).
Box 1.6: Skinnerian Reinforcement in the Technology-Driven World

It is generally believed that ease of use and positive experiences are two fac-
tors that will make people adopt new technology. In other words, they will act
as positive reinforcers for change in behavior. But is this always so? But the
reality is that technology can be a tale of two heads; one where positive rein-
forcement increases behavior and the other where the lack of reinforcement
(continued)
1.5 On Relating Psychology with Technology 25

decreases desired behavior. A case in this direction is the new technology,
Yammer, which was introduced by organizations as the organization’s own
social networking site over which people could discuss various work-related
issues. Through this program, coworkers can collaborate and share ideas
across an infinite number of people and locations instantaneously. Can you
imagine that there would be some people who would not like this innovation?
Yes, there were people who did not take to it. These were people who were
slower in their thinking, who were more wont to weigh the loss and benefits
of every action. The reason was that others who were faster or who were less
risk aversive often took decisions even before this slow person had weighed
all the alternatives and who may actually have the right solution, with the end
result that such people would soon stop thinking. Thus, organizations that
look to these new technologies must ensure that the reinforcement it provides
to those using it generates the positive, desired behavior that they seek.
Thus, reinforcements have to be considered in congruence with the needs
of the people being reinforced. Many a time, the same reinforcement may
work in different ways for different people. We are drawing closer towards a
psychology of technology based on the symbiosis of different schools of
psychology.
Source: Daniels (2000)
1.5.3 Psychology of Technology
The goal of the present volume, however, goes far

Psychology OF
beyond the above-mentioned ways in which psychol- technology: it attempts
ogy has been related with technology. What we are to unravel the ways in
interested in is psychology OF technology which which humans engage
attempts to unravel the ways in which we, as humans, with or are affected by
technology
engage with technology or are affected by it.
It is the scenario which develops when psychologi-
cal principles are applied to the study of human behavior in the context of technol-
ogy so as to provide insights regarding how we adapt under such varying conditions.
This is the theme of this book through which we will explore the multifarious ways
in which our cognitive, motivational, affective, and personality attributes are
observed, explained and understood in relation to technology and how this knowl-
edge helps in the prediction of human behavior in several domain-specific technol-
ogy environments. It helps us to understand how we emote with technology, how
attitudes towards technology are formed and changed as well as why some people
adapt to technology very easily while others do not. In other words, it focuses on the
deepening nexus between psychology and technology. An understanding of what
psychology of technology entails would be better gained by looking at its goals.
1.6 The Goals of Psychology of Technology
By and large, this new field of psychology of technology deals with the kind of
activity that is involved when technology and its content have an influence on human
behavior. In a broader sense, technology becomes the benchmark for the capabili-
ties of human beings for manipulating their environment and for exploring their
own capacity of living in this technologically modified environment. Functioning in
a virtual environment not only tests our physical skills, but also presents a challenge
to us as far as managing our cognitive, motivational, and affective processes are
concerned and evaluating our own existence in such an environment. If you have
seen the movie Avatar, you may easily connect with the amazing range of human
imagination that has been used in carving out this futuristic world. Just think about
living in this way and then try to evaluate your behavior and yourself.
As with all fields in which the principles of psychology have been used to under-
stand behavior in an applied realm (for further details, see Kool & Agrawal, 2006),
there are four goals of psychology of technology, namely,
• The goal of theory building
• The applied goal
• The goal of application
• The goal of applicability
The primary goal of psychology of technology is the
Goal of theory building:
goal of theory building, that is, to seek, test and
to seek, test, and broaden
broaden psychological principles in the use of things psychological principles
and adapting to them. As mentioned above, when in the use of things and
Skinner was developing his theory of reinforcement by adapting to them
testing his pigeons to pick up at the site of an image of
a ship, he was conceptualizing an operation in war. Many military generals were not
impressed by his theoretical arguments, but as we all know, Skinner’s theory of
reinforcement was later applied in diverse situations ranging from learning in the
classroom to the modification of behavior in clinical settings. With greater under-
standing of human cognition, for example, of short-term and long-term memory
systems and their neuropsychological bases, to the operation of our affective pro-
cesses, including our response to choices around us and visceral responses to
designs, psychological theories have been found useful in understanding human
behavior in the context of technology (Norman, 2004). For details, the reader is
referred to Chaps. 3–5.
The second goal of psychology of technology is its
applied aspect, which focuses upon obtaining greater Applied goal: focuses
upon obtaining greater
insight into the degree of usability of any technology insight into the degree of
and its consequences. If the steering wheel of my car usability of any
has to be moved in the left direction to navigate the car technology and its
to the left side, it demonstrates compatibility between consequences
the physical and mental operations used in driving my
vehicle. Unfortunately, if you have a four-knob stove without a knob set right
1.6 The Goals of Psychology of Technology 27
beneath it, the chances are that you might have, occasionally, used a wrong knob to
start the desired burner. Have you ever thought of designing a lever for an up-down
operation on a flat surface? What would be your configuration: moving in the right
direction means going up, whereas a left movement is indicative of a downward
movement? Wouldn’t it be hard to learn and remember that? Traditionally, such
issues have been studied in an area of psychology known as human factors engi-
neering or ergonomics. In Chap. 3, we will focus on how human beings process
information through their senses, organize it and then execute action as per the
demands of the situation. In the absence of such knowledge, the development of any
machine is likely to have a negative consequence for human performance. In Chap.
2, we have presented issues at the interface of technology, biology, and psychology
by citing the applied nature of anthropometry (systematic measurement of physical
human variation) and comfortability, or the degree to which a certain technology
can or cannot be used by the population for whom it has been designed. While some
answers have been provided by ergonomics and human factors engineering, a more
comprehensive understanding can be had by looking at the ways in which we cog-
nize technology. At the same time, psychology of technology in the applied context
would also invite answers not commonly addressed in the current human engineer-
ing psychology: our relationship with robots, artificial limbs substituting a part of
our body, and many other questions of humanistic origin. In other words, technol-
ogy will be addressed in the context of “within” us rather than being “out” there (see
Chap. 7).
The third goal of psychology of technology is its
Goal of application:
application. While it may be alright to develop a the- demonstrate the value of
ory based on reinforcement and show its applied value, use of things in the
it is imperative, at least in the fast changing world, to community
demonstrate tangibly and accurately the value of the
use of things in a community. Skinner’s teaching machines used for programmed
learning were criticized, but Skinner held on to his beliefs, and he even extended his
ideas to help build an ideal society. This issue is at the heart of using technology as
an intervention, that is, to demonstrate technology as a solution. While we may not
have clear answers to all the issues and questions (e.g., at what age should we allow
students to use calculators?), the field of psychology of technology will continue to
seek information and facts to update itself and be ready to demonstrate the nature
and limits of application.
Finally, the fourth goal of psychology of technology
Goal of applicability:
is applicability, that is, to look at the moral and ethical look at the moral and
aspects of the applicability of basic research. ethical aspects of the use
Undoubtedly, this is a very sensitive issue. Applicability of technology
involves exploring the desirability of a program and its
acceptance by the community. Skinner’s effort to build a society based on the con-
tingencies of reinforcement was not only rejected by his critics, but when such a
society was developed in defiance of the criticism, it actually failed in the face of a
real world. Similarly, although technology claims itself to be value-free, its use in
real life has caused a wide range of conflicts. From women’s right to drive cars in
some countries to restricting the hours of video games of children and more, the
applicability of technology has been questioned often even before its inception.
Take, for example, the use of surveillance cameras and the issue of freedom and
invasion of privacy. Similarly, the operation of computers is linked to organic mal-
functioning such as the carpel tunnel syndrome, but breaks at work have remained
unchanged. After evaluating this problem, Australian stenographers have been pro-
vided some relief but workers in other countries have not been so fortunate. The
modern wonders of engineering designs, the context of engineering, and the sus-
tainability of new technologies such as those based on nanotechnology are surely
widening our technological environment but in doing so are also making it more
complex. As technology progresses, so will be the range and breadth of ethical
questions (Winston & Edelbach, 2014; Mitcham, 1994; Latour, 1993).
We believe that the greatest concern regarding the issue of applicability of tech-
nology lies in its capacity to give the user a sense of power. Such power can be seen
in the military of a country or an individual’s capacity to deprive benefits to others.
An example is the way computer hackers are notorious for abusing their knowledge
of computers for harming others. Sensing such problems posed by the use of tech-
nology, Einstein had suggested a long time back that there should be accountability
in the progress of technology in order to avoid potentially harmful consequences.
This issue is very well illustrated in a recent book, by French thinker Bruno Latour
(2013). When an industrialist raised the question, “But why should we believe you
any more than the others?” in response to a scholarly lecture by a scientist on global
warming, Latour wrote, “I’m astonished. Why does he put them on the same foot-
ing, as if it were a simple difference of opinion between this climate specialist and
those who are called climate skeptics (with a certain abuse of the fine word “skep-
tics”)? Could the industrialist possibly have access to a measuring instrument supe-
rior to that of the specialist?” (p. 2, quoted from, An inquiry into modes of existence,
translated by Catherine Porter, 2013).
Many a tool may be usable but yet it has not been used. Tools much like enti-
ties in nature undergo a process of natural selection, akin to the Darwinian selec-
tion of species. Evolution of technology, too, takes place over the years and each
successive generation of that technology is better than its predecessor. Over the
years, the mobile phone has evolved into a genre very different from the first cell
phone, in size, in shape, and also in features. The twenty-first century car is very
different from those in the early twentieth century. So psychology of technology
will enable us to understand what happens to the technology as we engage with
it, along with what happens to us. Both change, but what are the changes? Thus,
current research on virtual reality shows how the very self-concept may undergo
change. It will help delineate how augmentation of our cognitive systems through
neural implant technology enables us to perform mental activities otherwise not
possible. While the size, shape, and weight of the neural implant have evolved,
has it led to a parallel evolution of cognitive abilities? Technology has enabled us
to multitask but has multitasking increased the capacity of our working memory
system?
1.7 Conceptual Framework for Psychology of Technology… 29
In other words, a psychology of technology will help understand the deep

symbiotic relationship between human capacities and technology, which is the
prime reason for the ways in which technology is becoming an irrevocable part of
our psyche, our personality, and our mentality.
1.7 C
onceptual Framework for Psychology of Technology
in the Context of the Interaction Between Technology,
Biology, and Behavior
As is evident from the above discussion, a deeper understanding of psychology of

technology would not be possible without taking into account the ever changing
influence of technology in our lives. At the level of our bodily functioning, the limits
of our skeletal to biomechanical systems have been researched on, and we are con-
tinuing to know more about them. What we do know is that there are limits to our
use of things, but at the same time technology offers opportunities for extension or
alternates to our adaptation to the environment. From the invention of wheels to
artificial limbs, the goal of technology has been to enhance mobility in particular
and overall performance in general.
It is also apparent that there is an evolutionary basis of technology with animals
using tools for a variety of purposes including, digging insects for food, swatting
flies, cracking nuts, and many more. Higher up the evolutionary ladder, we come to
early man, with the first discovered tools being some 3.5 million years old, namely,
the Oldowan pebbles found in Ethiopia. With recent advances in imaging technol-
ogy, it is now becoming increasingly clear that man’s brain has been changing. The
complex yet interesting ways in which the human brain has developed has been
analyzed by anthropologist, John Hawks. His analysis reveals that the size of the
brain of early man was very similar to that of ape today. However, it soon began to
expand and during the last one-third of our history has expanded to a size nearly
double of that of apes. Hawks (2013) writes,
“As our cultural and linguistic complexity, dietary needs and technological prowess took a
significant leap forward at this stage, our brains grew to accommodate the changes. The
shape changes we see accentuate the regions related to depth of planning, communication,
problem solving and other more advanced cognitive functions.”
Thus, man’s brain evolved, slowly but surely, to accommodate regions related to
a host of mental functions such as planning, problem solving, and communication
among others, propelling our technological prowess. The question is, would we
have been able to reach the level of technological growth being seen today, without
this level of growth in our mental faculties? The answer is “No.” This aspect, which
goes far beyond our innate sensory capacities, namely, the psychological aspects of
cognition, language, communication, and decision-making in the face of complex
choices can be said to be the second root of technological growth. Together, each
fuelling the other, biology and psychology have led us to develop technology to
never before seen heights. It is, however, important to remember that the links
between biology, psychology, and technology cannot be seen as being unidirec-
tional: not only have each grown independently, but they have also coevolved, with
technology spurring developments in biology and psychology as much as the latter
two have helped technological advancement.
We are apparently at a crossroad: to allow the three to coevolve, unbridled, or to
rein in their growth? In May 2014, one of the world’s sharpest minds, Stephen
Hawking, warned us of the threats of Artificial Intelligence, while not belittling its
benefits:
“The potential benefits are huge; everything that civilization has to offer is a product of
human intelligence; we cannot predict what we might achieve when this intelligence is
magnified by the tools that AI may provide, but the eradication of war, disease, and poverty
would be high on anyone’s list. Success in creating AI would be the biggest event in human
history” (Hawking et al., 2014).
Two years later, John Battele, founder, EIC and CEO, NewCo, asks,
“Who determines what is “good”? We are just now grappling with the very real possibility
that we might create a force more powerful than ourselves. Now is the time to ask our-
selves — how do we get ready?” (Battele, 2016).
This is where psychology of technology has a very big role to play, helping us to
get ready. While thinkers such as Ihde, Heidegger, Latour, and others have been forc-
ing us to wake up and try to understand the role that technology is playing and could
play in our lives, its good and its bad and the havoc it could cause, the role of psy-
chology, which is, the science of behavior, becomes all the more crucial. Psychology
of technology has become mandatory in the light of the fact that it is this mere 1 %
difference between man and apes that has enabled the former to create tools and
technology far surpassing those created by the latter. But is it not intriguing that a
mere one percent can lead to such a stupendous difference in their capabilities? The
net result of this one percent is the human psyche, with its unique perceptual, cogni-
tive, and emotional aspects, which go to differentiate man from all other animals and
which can be called the psychology of man. And, it is this human psychology from
which emanates technology. Biology alone, without the inputs of human psychology
would never have been able to bring in the kinds of inventions and discoveries we are
witnessing, and even more so, the rate at which technology is advancing. Just think
of Moore’s law: technology doubling every 2 years, nay every 18 months.
In short, understanding psychology of technology and building it further would
require continuous dialogue with growth in biological sciences on the one hand and
technology per se on the other. As stated earlier, any basic research, when viewed in
the context of its utility, would involve answers to the issues of applications and
applicability, that is, whether technology, as an intervention, has the potential for its
usefulness and is considered desirable under the prevailing social and cultural mind-
set of its users and the milieu of their community. These and many other issues may
form common gray areas of not only psychology of technology but also of bioeth-
ics, sociology of technology, and more. In the rest of this book, we will focus on the
scientific nature of psychology of technology and its applications in the develop-
ment and use of technology.
1.8 Methods of Research in Psychology of Technology 31
Philosophy of
technology
Technology
Adaptation
of
behavior
Augmentation
of cognition
E
N
Philosophy of C Philosophy of
technology E Biotechnology, technology
P Genetic
H engineering,
A Nanotechnology,
Psychology L Imaging
I techniques
Z
A
T
Adaption of I
behavior O
N
Growth of
cognition
Biology
Philosophy of
technology
Fig. 1.1 A conceptual framework for psychology of technology
The figure above (Fig. 1.1) attempts to capture the conceptual framework for
psychology of technology in terms of the relationship between biology, psychology,
and philosophy of technology so as to represent their combined role in the growth
of sustainable technology.
1.8 Methods of Research in Psychology of Technology
Since the study of psychology of technology involves a multidisciplinary approach,

its techniques of research vary from conventional techniques of research in psychol-
ogy (such as correlational analysis and the experimental approach) to simulation
techniques and state-of-the-art neurological techniques such as fMRI and other
scanning procedures. While such a divergence, may at times, place the study of
psychology of technology in an advantageous position it may also result in some
awkward growth. Consider a study of the range of comfortability or usability of a

gadget. A study of this phenomenon might appear very different depending on
whether it is a physiological study or one in psychology of technology. While we
can classify an organic growth in fixed objective groups such as its presence or
absence in the physiological study, it would be near impossible to determine the
same range of threshold for psychological experiences, say of pain and comfort-
ability, which vary considerably owing to individual differences. Therefore, what is
observable at the material and organic level might not be corroborated through a
related and relevant psychological report. Kool and Agrawal (2015) have pointed
out how divergence in research findings could have an impact on the interpretation
of results in terms of the validity of results sought in statistical terms as opposed to
that sought in the conceptualization of the experimental study (Box 1.7).
Box 1.7: On Using the Experimental Method in Psychology of Technology

“By definition, the experimental method is that method in which one or more
variables is/are manipulated by the experimenter in order to see its/their effect
on another variable. The variable which is manipulated is known as the inde-
pendent variable and since changes in the second variable are dependent on
the variation in the independent variable, this latter is known as the dependent
variable. Thus, to take an example from the natural sciences, one might want
to study the effect of altitude above sea level on the boiling point of a sub-
stance. In order to do so, one creates conditions in which the boiling point of
the substance is recorded at different altitudes above sea level. The latter, that
is, altitude above sea level on which the boiling point is said to vary would be
then called the independent variable while the boiling point itself becomes the
dependent variable. To take another example, this time from the behavioral
sciences, one might be interested in studying the effect of different training
programs on the performance of employees in an automobile manufacturing
unit. What would be the independent variable? The independent variable
would be the one that is being manipulated by or is in the control of the
experimenter, namely, the different training programs. Since performance
would be a function of these different training programs, that becomes the
dependent variable.
To this point, we can draw parallels between experiments in the natural
sciences and those in the behavioral sciences. But a variety of differences can
be pointed out, and it is these that in fact create the essence and the complexity
of experimentation in the behavioral sciences. First and foremost, the subject
of research, namely, the substance whose boiling point is to be measured, is
lifeless. As such, no matter who conducts the research, it does not matter, and
nor does the lifeless subject have moods, attitudes, personality, etc. Also,
since it is without life, we can divide our total amount of solution into 10, or
(continued)

maybe, 20 or even a 100 portions and each portion would yield the same
result, all other factors being kept constant. In contrast, the subject of research
in the behavioral sciences is a living organism and even more so is a complex
function of emotions, motivations, personality, etc. Can we divide our human
subject into ten, or even two parts? These and many other similar factors,
inherent in any subject that has life, call for the utmost caution while conduct-
ing research and especially experiments in disciplines such as psychology,
sociology, and anthropology. It is much more difficult to obtain reliable, valid
data unless due controls are exercised by the experimenter. It is primarily for
this factor of control that stringent experimental designs have been created so
that we may be able to establish cause–effect relationships, much akin to
those obtained in the natural sciences. An experimental design can be likened
to the architect’s blueprint which is not only prepared after considerable
thought but is also dependent upon the needs of the user of the building. So
also, a variety of experimental designs are available from which the researcher
can pick and choose depending upon his needs and the needs of the research
problem.”
Source: Kool and Agrawal (2015) p. 169–170
1.8.1 E
xperiments in Psychology Experimental method:
of Technology used to study cause–
effect relationships in
situations where it is
Experiments in psychology are conducted mainly with possible for the
two considerations in mind: experimenter to vary the
independent variable so
1. What happens when we, as experimenter, manipu- as to observe differences
late (create changes in) a variable of interest, take on the dependent
for example, the effect of continuous work without variable
rest, and
2. What is the net effect of the variable stated above, keeping all other factors in
control.
It is mandatory that several other considerations fol-
Independent variable:
low in order to establish the nature of the cause and the stimulus, input, or the
effect relationship, usually described as the relationship cause
between the independent variable (known as stimulus
or input) and the dependent variable (broadly known
as output or response). An integral part of experimenta- Dependent variable: the
response, output, or
tion is the random selection and allotment of subjects to
effect
each of the groups delineated in a study (e.g., the
Box 1.8: Illustration of Basic Experimental Research Method in

Psychology of Technology
With advances in Information and Communication Technology (ICT), hybrid
and online academic courses are on the rise. However, it remains to be estab-
lished as to whether factors such as cooperative learning, known to enhance
face-to-face learning, would impact computer-mediated learning in a similar
fashion.
To test for the above, Roseth, Salterelli, and Glass of Michigan State
University conducted an experiment on 101 undergraduates. The experimen-
tal design used was a 2 (Control: face-to-face) X 3 (medium: video, audio and
text) X 2 (synchronicity: synchronous vs. asynchronous) setup.
The experimental data made it clear that cooperative perceptions declined
and individualistic perceptions increased under the asynchronous condition,
which in turn led to lower levels of motivation and academic achievement.
The findings, thus, suggest that synchronicity of communication plays a much
more important role than medium of communication in computer-mediated
learning. The findings have important implications for social psychology the-
ory too. As the authors write: “For theory, findings also suggest that social
psychological theories based on face-to-face assumptions may need to be
modified to indicate that predicted outcomes depend on synchronous social
interaction” (Roseth, Saltarelli, & Glass, 2011, p. 804).
Source: Roseth, Saltarelli, and Glass (2011)
e xperimental group and the control group). Box 1.8 illustrates a typical methodol-
ogy for such an experiment in psychology of technology (see Chap. 4, Sect. 4.5 for
more examples).
1.8.2 U
se of Descriptive Methods in the Study of Psychology
of Technology: Observation and Surveys
There are many scenarios in which we are unable to conduct experiments to find the
effects of technology on behavior. Or, it may be too risky or unethical to conduct an
experiment in many situations. While attempting to study the effect of varying lev-
els of radiation (independent variable), would it be ethical to study its effect on
health and performance (dependent variable)? However, we can observe the current
levels of radiation in the environment and then seek a relationship between the
exposure levels of radiation and its consequence on health and performance of peo-
ple exposed to that environment. Such correlational studies are simple, common,
and efficient, but they do not ensure a cause and effect relationship, so imperative
for research leading to verification and future development of theories and models
in the study of psychology of technology.
Observational studies involve observing, classifying,

Observational studies:
recording, and analyzing behavior in natural or partly involve observing,
controlled settings. A classic study by Bandura and classifying, recording,
coworkers (1961) showed how children who watched and analyzing behavior
an aggressive cartoon character later used the same in natural or partly
controlled settings
tools used by the character in the cartoon to demon-
strate their aggression in a free play situation. This is a
classic example of observational and imitational learning and very much like what
is so commonly observed in the use of gizmos around us. Another use of the obser-
vational method is illustrated in Box 1.9. See Chaps. 4 (Sect. 4.5) and Chap. 6 (Sect.
6.8) for more examples.
The use of survey methods is popular in the study of
psychology of technology. The bottom line for success Survey method: used for
large-scale studies for
of any product is the response of the user of a product. measuring user
Therefore, surveys are very common in consumer satisfaction, comfortabil-
research before, during, and after marketing a product. ity, attitudes, and feelings
While writing this chapter, we saw a pop up from with reference to a
Microsoft, inviting us to participate in the survey on our technology
experience with their new system “Windows 10” that
we had recently loaded. For basic research purposes, the survey method is mostly
employed for measuring user’s satisfaction, comfortability, attitudes, feelings, and
hedonistic attitudes, that is, mostly for subjective evaluations of the user.
Box 1.9: Illustration of Observation Methods in the Study of Psychology

of Technology
With widespread use of mobile phones, the hazards of talking or even texting
on the phone while performing other activities is coming to the fore. Though
there is ample empirical data to support the observation that using the mobile
phone while driving is extremely dangerous, its effects on pedestrians still
remains to be validated. It was for this purpose that Beth Ebel and her cowork-
ers from the University of Washington collaborated with the Seattle Children’s
Hospital to conduct a study on the impact of social and technological distrac-
tion on pedestrian crossing behavior (Thompson, Rivera, Ayyagari, & Ebel,
2012).
We present excerpts from the abstract of the paper to show how observa-
tional studies can be performed to yield valuable insights, especially in the
case of phenomena that are not amenable to laboratory conditions and vari-
ables which cannot be varied by the researcher.
“Pedestrians were observed at 20 high-risk intersections during 1 of 3 randomly
assigned time windows in 2012. Observers recorded demographic and behavioural
information, including use of a mobile device (talking on the phone, text messaging,
or listening to music). We examined the association between distraction and c rossing
behaviors, adjusting for age and gender. … Observers recorded crossing behaviours
(continued)

for 1102 pedestrians. Nearly one-third (29.8 %) of all pedestrians performed a dis-
tracting activity while crossing…(which) included listening to music (11.2 %), text
messaging (7.3 %) and using a handheld phone (6.2 %). Text messaging, mobile
phone use and talking with a companion increased crossing time… Texting pedestri-
ans were 3.9 times more likely than undistracted pedestrians to display unsafe cross-
ing behavior (disobeying the lights, crossing mid-intersection, or failing to look both
ways). Pedestrians listening to music walked more than half a second (0.54) faster
across the average intersection than undistracted pedestrians.
Conclusions Distracting activity is common among pedestrians, even while
crossing intersections. Technological and social distractions increase crossing times,
with text messaging associated with the highest risk. Our findings suggest the need
for intervention studies to reduce risk of pedestrian injury.”
Source: Thompson, Rivera, Ayyagari, and Ebel (2012) p. 232–237
1.8.3 Employing Simulation
Before an operator is asked to run a machine, for exam-

ple, before flying an airplane, she is involved in some Simulations: use of
artificial systems that
practice on a system that resembles and follows rules resemble and follow
and conditions similar to that of operating the actual rules and conditions
machine. Broadly speaking, practicing on a model similar to the real
instead of the real product is a precursor to determine situation
that the user has reached the specified levels of safety,
optimum performance, and satisfaction (see Chap. 5, Sect. 5.11 for more informa-
tion). Though not commonly employed by psychologists, simulations based on
mathematical models are very helpful and useful. For example, graphical displays
of positioning of human body augment our understanding of behavior in work sta-
tion designs (Box 1.10).
1.8.4 Application of Methods Used in Neurosciences
It is well known that the overuse of technology has

Neuroscientific
negative consequences for our body. For example, techniques: techniques
working continuously on computers has its own cost such as EEG, PET, MRI,
resulting in the development of the carpal tunnel syn- and fMRI through which
drome. Is watching television for more than 2 h harmful brain functioning can be
to infants less than 2 years of age? How do we prove it? understood
There are several consequences of the use of techno-
logical products that we might not know about at all without the physical examina-
tion of the functioning of the body in general and brain in particular. The use of
EMG, EKG, EEG, PET, MRI, fMRI, and many other neuroscientific techniques,
Box 1.10: Illustration of Use of Simulation in the Psychology of

Technology: COMBIMAN
One of the problems of the use of technology is to find an adequate fit between
the tools, the workplace, and the human who has to operate those tools in that
particular workplace. A discipline which focuses on such man–machine fit is
that of human engineering or ergonomics and will be dealt with at length in
Chap. 2.
Since the worker operates in three dimensions, the workplace cannot be
adequately evaluated on the basis of a two-dimensional drawing. The tradi-
tional method of evaluating workplace designs in a three-dimensional setup
was by creating a mock-up. Since a mock-up is hardware, it took time, money
and effort to both build the mock-up and modify it. However, with limited
money, manpower, and especially time, these mock-ups became unfeasible as
a result of which human engineers started resorting to computer-aided simula-
tion techniques to design and evaluate man’s interactions with his working
place.
The Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory has developed a computer-
ized biomechanical man-model called COMBIMAN. It is an online interac-
tive computer model which can be used as a manikin for workplace design
and evaluation. Since its creation in the 1970s, it has undergone many changes
and has also found many applications, ranging from the evaluation of existing
workplaces to the creation of new workplaces and the criteria for selection of
people who will work in those workplaces.
The beauty of COMBIMAN is that it does not share the handicaps of the
mock-up since it exists only in the computer memory, and it does not require
much expenditure in either building a workplace or modifying it. Moreover, it
enables the creation of alternative designs which can then be evaluated and
permanently recorded.
mostly used in biomedical research, are regarded as pertinent for demonstrating the
psychological significance of technology-oriented behavior (Box 1.11). Does it
mean that by doing so we have reduced our complex interaction with technology to
the organic level? Not at all because the technological issues are embedded in a
social context. While the prolonged use of internet may lead to social isolation
(implied as a corollary for depression), it could also lead to increased socialization
of a different type (virtual socialization which takes place without physical face-to-
face interaction). According to Myers (2013), when psychology seeks support from
neurosciences, it is not all about the under-the-skin issue (biological); we must also
understand the context of between the skins (social) issues. In other words, the
effects of use of technology would need to be determined at several levels—indi-
vidual and collective. In short, technology will help us understand that what is good
for a group may not be good for a particular individual or vice versa. See Chap. 4
(Sect. 4.10) for more examples.
Box 1.11: Neuroscientific Techniques in the Study of Psychology of

Technology
One of the downsides of technological advancement is the growing addiction
to the internet, video games, and social media sites. So great is this peril that
many undergo sleepless nights. But what is the mechanism that makes it pos-
sible for people to remain awake despite the urge to sleep? Recent research
from the field of neurosciences using modern methods of brain imaging pro-
vides an answer.
In a ScienceDaily report entitled, One sleepless night increases dopamine
in the human brain research conducted by Nora Volkow, Director, National
Institute on Drug Abuse has been provided.
“The researchers studied 15 healthy participants who were either kept awake all
night or allowed a good night’s sleep. Researchers tested the same participants in
both conditions. On the morning of the study, participants rated how tired they were
and did cognitive tasks testing visual attention and working memory. The research-
ers used the imaging technique positron emission tomography to study the changes
in the dopamine system that occurs with sleep deprivation. Compared to well-rested
participants, sleep-deprived participants showed reduced binding of a radiolabeled
compound (raclopride) that binds to dopamine receptors in the striatum and thala-
mus. Because raclopride competes with dopamine for the same receptors, decreased
raclopride binding indicates increased levels of dopamine, according to the study
authors.”
Further, the report adds, “the rise in dopamine following sleep deprivation
may promote wakefulness to compensate for sleep loss. ‘However, the con-
current decline in cognitive performance, which is associated with the dopa-
mine increases, suggests that the adaptation is not sufficient to overcome the
cognitive deterioration induced by sleep deprivation and may even contribute
to it,’ said study author Volkow. Future research will examine the long-term
effects of chronic sleep disturbances on dopamine brain circuits.”
Source: Volkow et al. (2008))
1.9 Ethics in Research on Psychology of Technology
Conducting research in various areas of psychology of technology may be classified

in two ways: first, issues of ethics commonly applied to all areas of psychology, and
second, issues that are unique to the field of psychology of technology.
Regarding the former, the requirements for research in any field of psychology
are stated in several sources and researchers, without any exception, are mandated
to follow the guidelines enforced by their institutional review board. The following
agencies/institutions offer ethical guidelines:
• The American Psychological Association
• The Code of Federal Regulations HHS, Title 45, Part 46
1.9 Ethics in Research on Psychology of Technology 39
• The Protection of Human Subjects, HHS

• The National Institutes of Health
• The Canadian Psychological Association
• The British Psychological Society, and many more
In any empirical research in psychology, two basic
ethical procedures must be followed. It is required that Informed consent: the
process of giving enough
each participant be given enough information about the information about the
experiment before her consent is obtained for participa- research to the partici-
tion. This is known as “Informed Consent.” The sec- pant and obtaining her
ond is “debriefing,” that is, after the experiment is over, consent
the participant must be provided feedback about the
goals of research and involved deception, if any, in the Debriefing: the
use of procedures applied to reach the goal of experi- participant is provided
ment. A classic example regarding the above issues of feedback about the goals
of the research and any
ethics and the resulting adverse effects on subjects is
deception that had been
Milgram’s famous experiment, reported in almost every used during the research
contemporary introductory textbook of psychology. If
you request permission to replicate this classic experiment today, the human s ubjects
committee is not likely to accept your proposal (Box 1.12).
Box 1.12: Milgram’s Experiment

Stanley Milgram’s (1965, 1974) experiment on what happens when the
demands of authority clash with the demands of conscience have become
social psychology’s most famous and controversial experiments.
Milgram, who was a professor and wrote stories and stage plays, created
the following scene. Two men come to the psychology laboratory of Yale
University to participate in what has been described as a pioneering study on
the effect of punishment on learning. Of the two people, one has to act as
“teacher” to teach a list of word pairs to the other, who is the “learner.” The
“teacher,” who has come in response to a newspaper advertisement is admin-
istered a mild electric shock to familiarize him with the nature of the punish-
ment to be delivered to the “learner.” The “teacher” is then seated in front of
the shock generator which has switches ranging from 15 to 450 V. The
“learner” goes to the other room and is taught the list of words. With every
mistake he is administered a shock by the “teacher,” who is told by the experi-
menter to go on increasing the level of the shock, even though the “learner”
screams and pleads to be let off.
When Milgram described this scenario to a sizable number of psychia-
trists, college students, and middle class adults, people in all three groups said
that they would disobey the experimenter and refuse to deliver shocks beyond
135 V and none expected to go beyond 300 V.
(continued)

But when Milgram conducted the experiment on 40 men, 63 % went clearly
upto 450 V. When he re-conducted the experiment after making the learner’s
anguished protests even more vehement, again, 65 % fully complied with the
experimenter’s demands.
The obedience of the subjects disturbed not only Milgram but also social
psychologists in general. A reviewer from the New York Times complained
that the cruelty inflicted “upon their unwitting subjects is surpassed only by
the cruelty that they elicit from them” (Marcus, 1974) and critics argued that
there would be lasting psychological effects of such a horrifying experience.
Before Milgram started the experiment, informed consent had been taken
from all the participants: that they knew the purpose of the experiment and
that they were volunteering to participate. After such a harrowing experience,
it was equally necessary to debrief the subjects and tell them about the goals
of the experiment and the reason for the deception used (the learner did not
actually receive any shock). When Milgram debriefed the subjects, surpris-
ingly, 84 % said that they were glad that they had participated; only 1 % regret-
ted the participation.
Thankfully, no permanent damage was done to the participants, as revealed
by an interview conducted by a psychiatrist a year later on 40 of the partici-
pants who had supposedly suffered the most. Yet, it remains one of the most
controversial of experiments in the history of psychology.
For more information on ethical and procedural issues, the reader is
referred to the American Psychologist, 2009.
The other issues of ethics are, by and large, unique to the specific content of
technology as applied to behavior. In particular, after millions of dollars are spent
by engineers to develop products for human use, what would be the role of a fellow
psychologist who has been teaming with them in its development? Ethical concerns
require that psychologists should not socialize with other members in the team so
that they are able to offer objective evaluation. However, in practice, this does not
necessarily take place. The indiscriminate use of technological devices has been
raising our concerns for privacy and reminds us that “racial oppression lives in bod-
ies of color and social institutions” (Billies, 2015, p. 173). As stated earlier in this
chapter and later in Chap. 7, technology has led to a major fear, known as surveil-
lance threat. Probably, no other product more than the Google Glass is a clear illus-
tration of how psychological functioning will be influenced in ways unknown to us
until applied psychologists have the freedom to assess the impact of the technology
in an objective fashion.
When psychologists work in applied settings along with fellow scientists from
other fields, the operations that validate the use of a tool are examined with the goal
of reaching the targeted purpose. In doing so, psychologists apply their knowledge
and training to identify events and conditions and develop measures or tests to study
Chapter Summary 41
them. This is known as operational psychology, a relatively new subfield of psy-

chology that has its roots in the 1940s when the Office of Strategic Services (OSS)
recruited psychologists for combating effectiveness or lowering its risk. Since then
this field has been fruitfully applied in many areas of psychology including, but not
limited to, clinical, industrial, and law enforcement settings (Palarea, 2007).
In contemporary research, the impact of operational
psychology has been assessed in two ways: collabora- Collaborative opera-
tional psychology: when
tive operational psychology and adversarial opera- psychology plays a
tional psychology. While science is considered neutral, supportive role in
its applied nature is not necessarily neutral and may research in applied
often be viewed as being supportive or adversarial. settings
When psychology is put into practice, the supportive
role of psychologists, known as collaborative opera- Adversarial operational
tional psychologists, is not as problematic as when they psychology: when
play an adversarial role, especially under high-risk con- psychology fails to agree
with the goals of the
ditions of human performance (Staal & Greene, 2015).
research in the applied
Some researchers might not agree that the dangers setting
involved in the test conditions would meet the guide-
lines of APA or other agencies regarding requirements of ethical concerns under
dangerous conditions. Typically, we would need to ask the following questions to
satisfy the collaborative nature of ethical concerns:
• Informed consent must address issues of potential harm
• Potential plan of action must be free from possible harm
• Potential plan of action must be made freely available to all stakeholders
Should we meet the above conditions, applications of research would be broadly
viewed as collaborative in nature, failing which we will have to raise the bar of our
scrutiny to save it from potential adversarial impact. In the new millennium, the
growth of technology and its wide range of applications for human behavior pose
several new questions for which we might not, as yet, have any insight, for example,
genetic modification and gender change. It is expected that a number of new ethical
concerns will continue to emerge and we will be addressing them using hindsight,
just showing that human behavior is relatively slow in responding to the changes in
technology.
Chapter Summary
The introductory chapter has been written with four goals in mind: first, to provide
a working definition of technology and differentiate it from related terms such as
science and engineering and introduce the reader to philosophy of technology,
including the works and thoughts of Ihde, Jonas, Heidegger, Latour, and others. The
second goal is to explain the basics of psychology, and especially, psychology as a
science. The third goal is to relate psychology with technology with an attempt to
show that since human beings and their behavior, both at the individual and social
level, has become ever so intermeshed with technology, it has become imperative to
not only mandate a psychology of technology, but also, its specific goals (both theo-
retical and applied) and methods of research (drawing from scientific methods used
in psychology and modern imaging techniques used in neuroscience). The last goal
is to lay emphasis on the need for an ethics of research in this emerging field, much
as there is for almost all other disciplines.
Suggestions for Further Reading
Fallman, D. (2011). The new good: Exploring the potential of philosophy of technology to contrib-
ute to Human-Computer Interaction. Proceedings of the International Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2011, Vancouver, BC, Canada, May 7–12.
Rosen, L. D., Cheever, N., & Carrier, L. M. (Eds.).(2015).Wiley handbook of psychology, technol-
ogy and society. New York: Wiley.

The Emerging Nature of Psychology

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Emerging Nature of Psychology

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 1

The Emerging Nature of Psychology

1.1 An Introduction to Psychology of Technology

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 1

1.2 Defining Technology

the Greek word “techne,” meaning “art, skill, cunning

• Technology is resource based.

1.2.1 Science and Technology

1.3 Philosophy of Technology

technology is concerned. Specifically, we would like to know whether there is a

Table 1.1 Our understanding of technology and society

is now an art to complement our knowledge that is seemingly fathomless and

Box 1.1: Disaster on the Three Mile Island (TMI)

Box 1.1: (continued)

Box 1.1: (continued)

More recently, the thinkers from the analytical

Box 1.2: Don Ihde: Non-neutrality of Technology-Mediated Experiences

Box 1.2: (continued)

According to Albert Borgmann, as far as technology is concerned, a thing

1.4 Psychology as a Science

growth of several subfields of psychology, for example,

Box 1.4: Precursors of Psychology of Technology

Box 1.5: Eindhoven University of Technology, UG Program, Psychology,

1.5 On Relating Psychology with Technology

1.5.1 Psychology in Technology

The entire gamut of technology and its development is

1.5.2 Psychology and Technology

Second, we can consider psychology AND technology

While almost all sciences owe their growth to sophistication in technology, as of

Most students of psychology know that Skinner’s reinforcement theory is one of

Box 1.6: Skinnerian Reinforcement in the Technology-Driven World

Box 1.6: (continued)

1.5.3 Psychology of Technology

The goal of the present volume, however, goes far

1.6 The Goals of Psychology of Technology

In other words, a psychology of technology will help understand the deep

As is evident from the above discussion, a deeper understanding of psychology of

Fig. 1.1 A conceptual framework for psychology of technology

1.8 Methods of Research in Psychology of Technology

Since the study of psychology of technology involves a multidisciplinary approach,

awkward growth. Consider a study of the range of comfortability or usability of a

Box 1.7: On Using the Experimental Method in Psychology of Technology

Box 1.7: (continued)

Box 1.8: Illustration of Basic Experimental Research Method in

Observational studies involve observing, classifying,

Box 1.9: Illustration of Observation Methods in the Study of Psychology

Box 1.9: (continued)

Source: Thompson, Rivera, Ayyagari, and Ebel (2012) p. 232–237

1.8.3 Employing Simulation

Before an operator is asked to run a machine, for exam-

1.8.4 Application of Methods Used in Neurosciences

It is well known that the overuse of technology has

Box 1.10: Illustration of Use of Simulation in the Psychology of

Box 1.11: Neuroscientific Techniques in the Study of Psychology of

1.9 Ethics in Research on Psychology of Technology

Conducting research in various areas of psychology of technology may be classified

• The Protection of Human Subjects, HHS

Box 1.12: Milgram’s Experiment

Box 1.12: (continued)

them. This is known as operational psychology, a relatively new subfield of psy-

Suggestions for Further Reading

You might also like

1.1 An Introduction to Psychology of Technology

1.2 Defining Technology

1.2.1 Science and Technology

1.3 Philosophy of Technology

1.4 Psychology as a Science

1.5 On Relating Psychology with Technology

1.5.1 Psychology in Technology

1.5.2 Psychology and Technology

1.5.3 Psychology of Technology

1.6 The Goals of Psychology of Technology

1.8 Methods of Research in Psychology of Technology

1.8.3 Employing Simulation

1.8.4 Application of Methods Used in Neurosciences

1.9 Ethics in Research on Psychology of Technology

Suggestions for Further Reading